Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 20:49:28 +1000
From: Lynette Dumble <ljdumble-AT-connexus.net.au>
Subject: Arundhati Roy: "You need a Chomsky"


Dear sisters,
For the very first time, I disagree with Arundhati Roy; tehelka.com in 
exposing the corruption of India's military spending, did NOT need a Noam 
Chomsky, it needed an Arundhati Roy [or a Vandana Shiva] both of whom make 
the connections with an enormously big picture with unprecedented clarity!
Read below for Arundhati's inspirational connections.
With more warmest regards and apologies for possible crosspost, Lynette.
*******************
(http://www.tehelka.com/aspsite/rightstory.asp?id1=literary+reviewid2)

Arundhati Roy: "You need a Chomsky" 
Arguably, Arundhati Roy is now known equally well for The God of Small 
Things as for her polemical essays on the nuclear bomb, the Narmada dam, and 
most recently, the inequities of privatization. For her, the "the meat and 
drink" of being a writer, is to "make the big connection", and nothing is a 
greater travesty than writers who allow themselves to be the "intellectual 
equivalents of a Ms World". Here, true to that self- image, alternately 
mocking and serious, Roy analyses for Shoma Chaudhury the larger implication 
of the tehelka tapes - what it reveals about the establishment, the media, 
and most cripplingly, the middle-class. 

Watching the tehelka tapes, what was your overwhelming feeling?
Well, as you know, I watched it at the Imperial Hotel that day and I was 
absolutely delighted. I felt that somehow we had crossed a barrier in 
journalism and what journalism ought to be. I thought that this kind of 
image and evidence would do a lot to cut out the obfuscation that a lot of 
the media is involved with these days, and it would connect directly even to 
the man that can't write or read, which is such an important thing. And I 
told these people who are doing the digital festival just now that this is 
the kind of thing you should do, because this is what technology can do. And 
for many reasons, you know, I've worked in film, written scripts^Åso actually 
on all counts I was very delighted. It was a very exhilarating feeling to 
see something new happen and some new barrier being crossed.

You've had some experience of taking on the establishment with the Narmada 
andolan. So what did you think of the establishment's response to the 
tehelka episode? The double speak, the whole vaudeville show - did it 
horrify you, or was there a sense of déjà vu? 
Well, you see, what I've been saying for sometime is that I'm not 
particularly interested in the politics of governance because we know how 
rotten that is at the moment, but I'm extremely interested in the politics 
of opposition. And when you talk party politics what is worse than the fact 
that we have a ruling party that is involved in some pretty ghoulish stuff 
is that we have an opposition that is equally culpable. So what we need to 
do as members of a civil society is to find a way of calling the bluff. In 
the case of Narmada, every single political party has supported that dam and 
continues to do so, so it's of no relevance whether the Congress is there or 
the BJP is there or who the hell is there - all these people are involved 
with the business of holding on to power. Unfortunately, the tehelka episode 
shows up the same thing. 

And the helplessness of civil society in India has a lot to do with the fact 
that whether it was in the time of colonialism or whether it is now, the 
elite has completely colluded. It is a form of treason as far as I am 
concerned - what the elite has done. During the colonial time, there could 
not have been more Brits in India then than there are today - so we were 

doing it to ourselves then and we are doing 
it to ourselves now. And I think that people ought to be able to understand 
what it means to be elite. I mean, a media operation is that - it comes from 
that class, I come from that class but that does not mean that we have to 
participate in this eyes glazed over. We all benefit from it - it's time for 
us to be completely honest about that. But at the same time I feel that 
there are some people who have shown wonderful integrity and the louder 
those voices get, the more important it is, and I think what tehelka did was 
that. As far as I'm concerned I'm not interested in whether it was a 
conspiracy or it's not a conspiracy - I don't care. I don't want to know the 
name of the policeman who filed the FIR, I'm interested in the crime, 
interested in how are they developing this language that they can come on TV 
and brazenly deny that a man took money and put it into his pocket.

And then hold an inquiry into whether he's guilt or not!
Exactly! Just imagine, on the 23rd of April, I have to appear in the Supreme 
Court because some four advocates have filed a case against me for contempt 
of court and because according to them, I tried to murder them outside the 
gates of the Supreme Court! I don't know what they're talking about. But 
nobody said there should be a debate in parliament, or an inquiry, or even 
an investigation! No, take her to court. I have to hire a lawyer and a 
senior counsel. I mean, what is that?! I don't understand how brazen things 
can get, this whole business about they did it for the party - what is that? 
You know, you can do it for your family, I did it for my daughter-in law, I 
did it for my dog - I don't care who you did it for, this is illegal!
(Laughs) 

And look at them ordering inquiries. I mean, what is their big thing against 
the NBA? Oh, you're taking foreign money. These guys don't have houses, they 
don't have anywhere to live, they're in jail all the time, they don't have 
any money -I know because I have money and I use it to help them, and I know 
they don't have anything. And these guys want to pillory them - take out 
these huge advertisements, say all kinds of things against the NBA. And it's 
alright for you to say, give me dollars for my party, and no one's going to 
say anything but you're going to have a discussion in parliament? It's 
outrageous. So what I'm saying is that what the whole tehelka thing has done 
is upped the ante. You've got to be so brazen that you become ludicrous. 

Apart from the obvious corruption, what do you think is the most damaging 
revelation of the tehelka tapes? 
Amongst many other things, the fact that the real problem is not that we 
have what's become a lame duck government, but that we have a bloody lame 
duck opposition. I mean, the single largest factor preventing a democracy 
from functioning is Mrs Sonia Gandhi. Someone should get her a ticket. (In a 
mock mincing tone) Alitalia. Club class. 
(Both laugh)
No seriously, I wish she would leave. The Congress would probably fall 
apart, but then at least from its ashes something new and more strong and 
healthy would rise.

Ya, I agree. In fact, one of the most depressing aspects of the tehelka 
story is the political impasse: the fact that there are no alternatives. 
Sonia, Advani, Jayalalitha, Laloo, Bal Thackeray, Jyoti Basu^Å - there's 
nobody to choose from. Vajpayee, by default, is the only man fit to rule the 
country. Given this situation, realistically, what can the tehelka story 
result in? 
See, I think you shouldn't think about it, you know. The point is that you 
can't start - you don't have to put yourself in that position and say, what 
should we do? You just say, this guy took money, he should be prosecuted; 
she took money, she ought to be prosecuted. Just be very simple. Let 
whatever happen, happen, ya. If tomorrow I take money from somebody, you're 
not going to say, oh, but how're we going to get a replacement? (Laughs) You 
know, it doesn't matter, let whatever happen, happen. But excusing this kind 
of thing is asking for trouble. It doesn't matter, let the government change 
every six months, but let it be known that this kind of thing is not 
acceptable. I don't care if the Congress has taken money on Bofors, if it 
can be proved, then prosecute them; and if it can't be proved then let's 
wait and try and prove it, but here it's been proved and we cannot take the 
position of elder statesman and say, oh, but there's only Vajpayee. 

Just stick to a demand for probity and accountability^Å
Yeah, how else can we begin? We can't play adjustment games, otherwise we'll 
also become like these people who are distributing party tickets. I think 
one should keep one's head down - this is what happened, this what the law 
says, you guys have to be prosecuted. As far as I can see, that's it.

My point is, given an apathetic, anesthetized middle class and a lame duck 
opposition, what shape can the "politics of opposition" take? 
It'll happen. Let's see what happens. Let's just press for action on what is 
happening. You know, whenever people talk about globalisation, which is 
really occupying my thoughts because I can just see and feel the horror 
that's being unleashed on us while people bring out their account books and 
show us their stunning balances ^ÅAnd you know, people tell me this all the 
time: it's inevitable, it's irreversible, how can you 
fight the wind, you must accept it. I keep saying, look, I just think we 
should be specific. Let's get Enron out. Let's just win something. We just 
can't keep saying these things and win nothing. Let's win something. That's 
what I was saying about the Narmada. This is a huge spectacular wonderful 
fight - it's got all the facts on its side, it's got the people on its side, 
it's got all the ammunition you need, so why can't we stop it? You know, and 
if you can't stop it, you can't target your goal specifically - you're lost, 
ya, you're lost. So I think it's very important not even to ask that question.

No, I wasn't talking about the futility of the task, I was asking what - 
No, I'm just saying, it doesn't matter - let it roll, let it go. I just feel 
we have to be very simple about it now. Just don't get into that game. I 
mean Sonia Gandhi - if she becomes the prime minister, she will, pardon my 

language, fuck up so royally - she'll have to go, you know. The BJP had to 
come because everybody said, they've never been given a chance. Well, now 
they've had their chance. You have to take a slightly long view, you know. 
Like now, you tell me, how is the BJP going to start on Ram mandir and all 
that? They have no credibility, and not just that, I'm not just talking 
about corruption, everybody knows corruption is generic. But from 1st of 
April, from WTO's agreements with us, they are going to start importing 
everything we already produce here. I mean, people are broken. They are 
trying to export wheat to America and Canada and they are saying, oh, you 
subsidise agriculture, but they subsidise theirs, you know. So people are - 
you are putting a boot into their stomachs. Nobody's interested in the Ram 
mandir any more. You force CNG onto bus and autorickshaw drivers, and then 
you lower tax on luxury cars. I just sense the dread. If you read Nadine 
Gordimer and the apartheid in South Africa - it's no different from what's 
happening here, except we have the benefit of being brown-skinned. If only 
we were a different colour, it would be so obvious what's going on. 

You said corruption is so generic, so then what about this investigation 
catalysed such an outpouring of public opinion? 
Just the visual image, you know, which is a different thing completely from 
producing a judicial joint parliamentary probe, or something. You know, just 
the evocativeness of the image is worth a roomful of probes and 
parliamentary debates. 
But there is a worry here. The vehicles of power are so insidious, if 
nothing concrete comes of this, and if as expected, the inquiry clears 
everyone, who'll have the energy to fight again? I mean, do you think the 
inquiry has any teeth? And how can the tehelka story go forward from here? 
The inquiry may have no teeth, but it doesn't matter. You can't use that 
word about who will have the energy^ÅYou just go out and see the way people 
fight. I mean these guys, the Narmada Bachao Andolan - 15 years ya, 15 
years, they've been at it, in and out of jail. None of us can say this, we 
don't have the energy, it's not about an ordinary working day. If I was 
tehelka, I would bloody well make a version of this film and every cinema 
house in India should show it. You should travel around. You don't have to 
do it personally, there'll be plenty of people who will want to step in. 
Show the film ya. Organise it in the Ram Lila grounds if you have to. It's 
fantastic it came on Zee. But get in touch with all these people's 
movements. They're so thrilled with it, so absolutely thrilled with it. Have 
public screenings. Don't be scared of stepping out, uh^Å

Into the grit^Å
Ya, be activists if necessary. Let people call you names, ya, you don't have 
to be scared about that. Let people do or say what they want as long as you 
have nothing to hide. We all have plenty to fear. We have nothing to hide, 
but plenty to fear. Everybody does. But, you know, if they try to obfuscate 
it or hide it or whatever, there are ways of really taking this up. You can 
get support from a lot of people. I know people who'd be very happy to show 

up and turn it into a - - a symbol^Å
(Overlapping) - that's the thing^ÅYa, you have to be prepared to be overtly 
political. 

It's such a potent moment. It would be a pity if it just petered out as a 
wonderful story or became a dog and bone game between the political parties. 
Ya, I think it's quite different from your cricket thing. I wasn't here, but 
what I hear of your cricket thing, there were just people saying things 
about each other, whereas here you have a damning visual proof. And I don't 
know, maybe it's a good thing that tehelka didn't do it, but one of the 
important things that hasn't happened is that I feel that this story hasn't 
been lifted to a different level, which is where you understand the politics 
of what's going on here. Why does the middle class collude in all of this? 
Why is it important for us to be made to feel insecure all the time about 
Pakistan and China and Kashmir? How much has the defence budget increased in 
the last few years? How much commission does that give people, and isn't 
that enough for them to go on in this militaristic manner? All this is not 
about nationalist or Hindutva sentiment - it's about bloody money, you know. 
What is the whole process of privatisation really all about?

But that's a slightly ambivalent point in this context. It's because of 
globalisation that we could get the equipment, it's because of privatisation 
that there were enough private channels to air the story. God forbid, if 
this story had been done in the time of Doordarshan monopoly, it would have 
just been blacked out. 
Yes, but it's not some black or white thing, either this or that. We are the 
citizens ya, we can decide what we want to privatise, what's good for us and 
what is not. There's a very big difference between privatisation of 
essential infrastructure and opening up the air. But that's what I'm saying, 
the debate ought to be lifted to a different level, on the one hand, and on 
the other, specifically just pressure for action to be taken on it. That is 
more important than anything else. That we are not going to let it drop 
here, you know. And we have to make sure that everything is followed up.

So, if this had been your story to handle, your campaign, what would you 
have done? 
Well, I think what tehelka did was wonderful, but I'm biologically and 
chemically a completely different type of animal and for me it's never the 
case that I would just say that I'm just a journalist and this is my story. 
There is great merit in doing that and I don't think that anybody has more 
right to say that then tehelka because it is an independent operation, but 
even as an independent operation I can never just be a writer or just be 
anything. I'm a completely political animal, and the connections that tehelka 
hasn't made are the first things that always come to the fore for me. As a 
writer, my meat and drink is to make the big connection, to take it to a 
different level altogether, to try and reveal the machine that's at work - 
not merely the fact that there's corruption in arms deals, but what does 
that corruption mean in arms deals, what does it mean that the budget for 

arms has been increased, what does it mean in terms of our motivations for 
fighting a war here or doing a nuclear test there. So I think that is a 
vacuum hasn't been filled, and I don't expect tehelka to fill it 
necessarily, but it could. 

In fact, I actually told Tarun (Tejpal, editor-in-chief, tehelka.com) I 
would have taken two or three people into confidence before breaking the 
story, and one of them would have been N Ram (editor of Frontline), because 
he's not the kind of chap who would be interested in getting the credit or 
whatever, and he has his blind spot on his CPM thing, but he's a very big 
heavy weight. He is a known political person and he thinks politically and 
he has a lot of gravitas. And I felt that that was needed. If I had been 
tehelka, I would have shown two or three people like him the tapes and when 
the film was released I would have had these guys there on the panel ready 
to really spell out the significance of the thing. 

You think right now it's a celebration of a maverick spirit and good 
journalism and its real political impact hasn't been played out?
Ya, it's such a big thing, you know, this is a great piece of work, but what 
does it mean politically? Say you had a really heavy weight lawyer who had 
prepared what it means legally, a political analyst, an editor - all these 
panels on the fallout would have worked better. The discussion would have 
been of a different quality. You needed to prepare your reinforcements, you 
know, because people's movements and support groups don't just happen ya, 
they are arranged. You walk from village to village to village talking to 
people for years before you have a Narmada Bachao Andolan. It won't just 
happen from the air. That's what political activism is about. It's about 
working 24 hours a day. 

So can you point out something about the issue that really needed to be 
discussed?
See, one interesting thing for me is that, you know, obviously I've heard 
this thing about how to give a bribe is as illegal as to take one, and so 
tehelka should be prosecuted. I think it would be a joke if tehelka were to 
be prosecuted, but I personally believe that it is very important to 
redefine corruption so that the bribe giver is as culpable as the bribe 
taker - certainly. Because that's what this entire business about 
privatisation is about, what Enron and all are up to. That's what it is. And 
it's very important for us to - you see, Shoma, one thing that you have to 
understand, which is very serious indeed, is that in this whole game, it's 
very important for them to see India as some banana republic with all these 
corrupt government officers, and the government will themselves say that 
we're so corrupt therefore we need to privatise. But it's only a heightened 
rarified version of corruption - what they are up to now. 

This is important to remember at all points, you know. In your tapes the 
fact is that you are a fake organisation, but what about the real ones? What 
are they up to? All the colonial powers today in the world are the biggest 
arms exporters. I mean, it's alright to bay about the Bamiyan Buddha, but 

who the hell created the Taliban? What did America do in East Timor? All 
that is all part of this, ya. It's not just about laughing at Bangaru Laxman 
and Jaya. That's why I am saying you needed a real heavy weight, you needed 
a Chomsky. 

To trace the patterns^Å
Ya, you needed a Chomsky to raise this. Who are the arms dealers? What the 
hell are they dumping on us? These are all issues which you know, after all 
what America's been up to and what it is up to in Pakistan, and the whole 
thing even starting from partition - there's a big historical perspective 
here. And I keep saying that, you know, for about an hour every day, I long 
for innocence. I wish I didn't know all this, I wish I didn't see it the way 
I see it, because it just makes you feel that, you know, you'll end up in a 
- you know, as a basket case! You just see the whole thing at work and it's 
very frightening. And you see how helpless people eventually are - unless we 
as writers and journalists can keep on simplifying things and making the 
connections^ÅVery important to get out of the club.

In fact, that's a question I'd like to ask you specifically, at a moment 
like this, what is the writer's role? And is there a certain kind of writer 
who can fill that role? 
Well, I think that writers can and must make the connections and tell the 
story, but you see writers are not - like I keep saying, your writing or 
your style or your way of thinking is not some detachable thing that you 
take off or put on whenever you go out. So unless you are a political 
person, you can't see what's going on in front of your nose, no? You can 
write a history of ecology and not mention dams because of that. You know 
nobody can - it's very difficult for you to say that this has to be the role 
of writers^ÅIt would be great if they would because they do have the skill, 
but that skill is nothing if you don't have the understanding or the 
inclination. That skill is not a separate thing from the understanding. Like 
you can't come and tell me, Arundhati, this is what is happening in the 
Narmada valley, can you write about it? 

The skill's not for hire.
Ya, you can't graft the skill onto a different political heart. As a writer 
I understood what was happening in the valley in a shot - because I 
understand that kind of politics, I've always understood it. One of my 
sweetest stories is about this person in the NBA, she read my book and she 
told me, I really loved it and I knew when I read The God of Small Things 
that you'd be against big dams. 

(Both laugh) 

Can you imagine? She said that it's so clear, like from the 
politics of The God of Small Things, it's so clear that obviously, obviously 
you'd be against big dams! (Still laughing) I said that's the most novel 
comment I've ever had about my book! But there really isn't any difference 
in one's politics. For a long time, I've thought the way I think. Because, 
as you know, though one has been born into a particular kind of class, one 
never enjoyed the privileges of that until now, you know, recently. So I've 
seen it, and I know that is why it really took me three months to understand 

everything about the Narmada and I can debate it with anybody anytime 
anywhere. Whereas there are people who have been following it for years, who 
don't get it, because they don't have the politics. 

When did your own politicisation start? Was it something instinctive with 
you, or was there some incident that got you engaged?
No, I think perhaps a lot of it has to do with growing up in Kerala, and 
from the age of three seeing red flags and processions and unions and all 
that. But I don't think I was ever a non-political person. I mean, I was 
overtly political from the time I was in college. My architectural thesis 
was one big fight with the college where nobody was allowed to do anything 
except a design thesis on a hospital or a housing complex or something, and 
I insisted that mine would not be that and it was on post colonial urban 
development in Delhi - and it was exactly about all the things I'm talking 
about now, you know the whole business of the city and the non city, how 
rules are made in order to de- legitimise vast sections of the population 
and all that. I mean, the reason I cannot be a practising architect is a 
political reason, because I'm actually a person who's obsessed with design. 
I love the idea of design, of artistic beauty, but I could not practise 
architecture - certainly not here. So ya, political I've been for a long 
time. And I think that there's a seamless link in my case from, you know, 
politics at the international level to a politics that is deeply personal - 
it's all connected. (Pauses) From being the child of a woman who was 
divorced and lived in a village in Kerala and was treated in the way that 
she was and in the way that I was - I started there.

To get back, if you were to make the connections - what do the tehelka tapes 
reveal? What is the malaise in our society of which this whole venal episode 
and the way the establishment dealt with it, is a symptom? 

Well, for one thing, it's like I said, almost 80 per cent of our country has 
been 'disinvested' from the country. Because we, as a ruling elite, have 
just replaced the British. You know it was easy during the nationalist 
movement because the enemy and the aim were clear: here are the British, 
they are white, send them away. But now we have replaced the British, the 
enemy is within, so whom are going to send away? What I'm saying is that you 
have inherited the entire colonial structure, and now you are trying your 
best to make elections as irrelevant as possible. And the only punishment 
for a political party that commits any crime - whether it's mass murder, 
whether it's massive corruption, whether it's compromising national security 
- your only punishment is resignation. What is that, you know? (Pauses) 
Whereas, if things were more decentralised, if in a village you have say a 
budget of fifty lakhs, and the people of that village know the 
administration has fifty lakhs and this is what they are supposed to do with 
it^Å Now if they don't do it, at least these guys have some control, they 
have some access, they have some way of forcing accountability, but this 
way, the way things are now, it's complete disempowerment. Any of us, we'd 

just give up thinking it's too big, you know. 

So what is the alternative you suggest? 
I'm very clear about this - an alternative is exactly what you don't want. 
There cannot be an alternative. The whole point is to let go, you know. 
There cannot be^ÅThere can be administration, but basically the empowerment, 
even the power to fuck yourself up has to be local, you know, because then 
when you do it, you have to face the wrath directly of the people who you've 
fucked up. But you can't have somebody in Kerala having to come - you look 
at the case of someone's land being taken away in Jalsindhi, how is that 
person to understand what is happening in the Supreme Court in Delhi? 

But as a country you have to have larger arteries, there have to be 
connections - how do you make synapses if you say nobody has the right to 
play patriarch? 
No, I'm not saying that nobody can^Å I'm saying that you have to decentralise 
it to a point, to a huge extent. Even ecologically. Now even the father of 
the Green Revolution, M S Swaminathan, he is saying this, he's saying that 
you can't just suddenly say that I have to grow rice in Jaisalmer. You have 
to respect the ecology of the place, you know, there is an ecology and 
economics of being a desert district which is different from the ecology of 
being a tropical or tropical deciduous whatever^Å (laughs). So what one is 
talking about is an intelligence which allows you to respect something 
local. Of course, one is not suggesting, just as one is never suggesting in 
literature that whoever is from Aynemem should write in Malayalam and in the 
Aynemem dialect - one is not suggesting that. But certainly things are not 
okay the way they are now. 

So you're saying a crucial thing the tehelka tapes reveal is a breakdown, a 
disregard for accountability, a gap in how much power people wield over 
their own representatives and their resources. And you're saying localised, 
decentralised bodies of power would go some way in rectifying that. 
Ya, but what is happening now is the complete opposite where even your 
central government is disempowered. So^ÅI mean, the head of Enron today was 
working with economic espionage in the CIA, George Bush used to work with 
Enron, and they are controlling the power - 

Sorry, I didn't get that - 
The CEO of Enron, guy called Kenneth Lee, he used to work in economic 
espionage in the CIA and the CIA's brief is to increase American 
investments. George Bush used to do consultancies for Enron, he laid some 
gas pipeline in Argentina. Now these guys are controlling how much - I mean, 
if you read the counter guarantees the central government has given, the 
other day I read in the papers, everything except military installments 
(laughing)^Å everything. So they can auction some bloody Raj Bhawan and say, 
give us our money, you know! So, it's not even your own government now, with 
this privatisation - 

Even they are owned by somebody! 
Exactly.

If you were to assess the long term impact of tehelka on politics and 
society and media. What would it be?
You know, I hope that the media will be the most affected by it because I 

think this is a tremendous service. Somehow I just pray it brings in some 
fresh air, that it makes people feel that this is what we should have been 
doing, that we were lost somewhere, just playing the game of servicing this 
confused industry with a little more confusion. And I really hope that 
investigative journalism will surface as a very straightforward thing to do. 
I think tehelka has really has opened up the possibilities of change in 
journalism and I hope that people are inspired by it. 

Also, I think for a small organisation like tehelka to have done it, and to 
have managed to show it without having been prey to any of the political 
considerations that everybody else has, is a wonderful thing. I think 
Outlook and Frontline are both magazines that have that potential but the 
great thing about the tehelka story is that it was not very convoluted, and 
that's very important. That's what I'm also trying to say all the time, you 
know, that I want people to understand what's going on - I want to explain 
it to them. It's an act of generosity (laughing self deprecatorily) to want 
that, you know. 

Politically, it's less clear. Fatigue is there about everyone saying, but 
everybody is corrupt. I really don't want to hear it anymore. Let's say that 
whoever gets caught is corrupt. I'm quite happy to say that, you know. 
You're caught, you know x and y and z are also corrupt, but they weren't 
stupid enough to get caught, you were - so you pay the price for that. And I 
think a lot of how it pans out politically will depend upon how dogged one 
is prepared to be, how dogged you are prepared to be. 
(Pause)

But you know what I think would really be a great thing? You should take 
three or four months and make another version of the whole story - all the 
debates on TV, all the denials^Åthe whole thing. I mean to intercut Bangaru 
taking that money with him saying, I didn't do anything^ÅIt would be 
fantastic film, you know. You'd have these people saying (mimicking Mukhtar 
Abbas Naqvi on TV in falsetto) - Oh, but this thing, poora matlab unhone 
sundar sa ek script likh ke (laughing uproariously)^Å It would be great, ya. 
Really, just think of it, even as an artistic product! It would be great 
fun. Really it would be fantastic. Don't stop now. The stuff of what 
happened in Parliament and poor old Thomas Mathew and these guys saying kuch 
nahi hua, and Arun Jaitley being pious and trying to say the tapes have been 
tampered with and Jaya debating over her lines^ÅYou must do it. I swear. So 
they're made to look even more ridiculous. You must. I'm sure you could 
release it all over India, every film theatre would show it. 

Ya, if nothing else laughing at them would be empowering for us all! 
I'm telling you, get all this footage. No commentary, just juxtapositions, 
images.
What I'm saying is that you should now move into art - really. Because one 
of the reasons why I know I get up people's wigs so badly is that I'm always 
laughing. I'm mean, I'm not kind of potato up your arse kind of person. 
Also, you know, the more fun you have with this thing, the more effective it 
is. It's not like one is ever suffering. I don't want to suffer ya, I want 

to have a blast. The whole thing, just imagine it, the tapes and then the 
fallout. It would be wonderful. I would love to do it myself if I was an 
editor. And I wasn't going to jail on a murder charge!

Can you think of any other comparable media intervention?
Well, the Watergate thing was one. But this isn't comparable because 
obviously it was a fictitious deal and it shows up a systemic problem as 
opposed to a specific scam, it shows up the rot in the system, and is in a 
way illustrating what everybody already knew. But in the illustration lies 
the power and the beauty of it. 

(Long pause) 

But I'm really thrilled with that idea of the film. Have you seen anything 
called Not the Nine o' Clock news? It's a British comedy. It's so funny, I 
just screech with laughter every time. Like you have a shot of Margaret 
Thatcher giving some impassioned speech and then you have her aide doodling, 
and on the soundtrack you just have this hum, (hums a cheery tune and 
dissolves into laughter), or you have this close up of a wilderbeast's 
arsehole extruding this shit and you cut to Prince Charles picking up 
something and putting it in his mouth and saying, umm. (Both laugh) 
Obviously that's not what I'm talking about, but it would be equally funny 
seeing Bangaru taking this money and then saying, no, but I thought this was 
just for some hospital or something. It would be fantastic. 

Speaking of the British media, how do you think this story would have been 
treated in the first world?
I think that the kind of corruption that exists in the first world is far 
more venal and far more insidious than ours, you know. Ours is a bit out in 
the open, the linesman, the bus conductor... Whereas over there it's so much 
more sophisticated and the scale of money so large. But I think heads would 
have rolled immediately, they are quite merciless that way. The public is 
much more empowered and the opposition would have just killed. Look what 
they did because of Monica Lewinsky. This is dynamite compared to that. So, 
there would have been merciless butchery in my view, not because corruption 
doesn't exist, but because it's very important for them to be seen as 
accountable.

A lot of what you've been talking about so far suggests a certain activism. 
So specifically, what is the political activism that can be spun off?
>From here? I think that we should - how to go about it is, I would say, who 
are the people who are involved with trying to change anything? You know 
these are people who everybody in the middle class is scared of. Bloody, 
this Thomas Mathew (in the Home ministry) who got suspended - they are 
saying he had ties with the NAPM. NAPM what is the NAPM? National 

Why is that?
Because unfortunately, grabbing of natural resources and redistributing it 
to the upper classes suits us, no, actually big dams suit us, suit me, fine. 
Centralising natural resources - taking over a river or forest and saying 
that we will own it and then we will decide who can have it, and naturally 
the strongest will get it, the sugar cane factory at the head of the canal. 
You see, we belong to the upper class so it suits us fine, because we know 

we will be taken care of. And that's what this whole process is about. 
That's why no one is overly bothered about all this corruption. I've said 
all this again and again in my writings and interviews. And personally, the 
only reason I didn't come out and say anything on tehelka is that Tarun is 
my publisher and I'm a known - whatever - troublemaker, so it would be 
better for you if I stayed out of it. But I'm personally surprised why no 
one else has done so forcefully. No, why am I saying I'm surprised? I'm not 
surprised. It's absolutely the pattern, absolutely the pattern. 

Personally, I thought that middle class morality would be hurt, that there 
would at least be a signature campaign or something. 
Why didn't it happen with Narmada?

Because those are more complicated issues.
No they are not, they are not. In a way they affect people much more ya, 
than this. Look at India - the mass of people, they don't have any money. So 
when you talk of corruption, they say, kiska paisa hai? Apna toh nahi hai, 
hamare pas toh hai nahi. (Who's money are they misusing? It can't be ours 
because we don't have any!) Because the structure of how the economics of 
this country works is so complex that you snatch things away from a guy 
before he gets it. It's not that you allow a farmer to grow something and 
then sell it and then charge him a tax, na. You 
actually control the prices and then you have public funds and if one per 
cent of that public fund reaches him, he says thank you to his bhagwan or 
something. No one is invested in the system because everybody is excluded 
from it. So corruption - what does it mean, ya? If Laloo took hundred crores 
- some poor guy, he thinks it's not my money. So corruption is also some 
theoretical thing, no. If some postman takes money from you because someone 
sent a money order - now that's corruption. But this level of it, even I - 
how many zeros are there in 62 crores? But anyway, what I'm saying is that 
those connections - you can rest assured that no one is going to come out in 
support of anything, certainly not the intellectuals of Delhi, certainly 
not, that won't happen. 

So the middle class emerges as the real weak link, the people who are really 
culpable?
Totally culpable, totally culpable. I often wonder why this country is so 
non-violent, why isn't there more anger? Every moment of one's life, one 
lives in an absolute kind of, I don't know - every second of my life I have 
to think about how to carry on with some amount of integrity, some amount of 
- I mean there are so many forces pulling you in different directions. You 
know, like, for instance, I used to live in a barsati upstairs with Pradip. 
His parents died, the whole big house became his. Now there were a whole lot 
of people who used to work for them - now I can't, like I can't, I don't 
have the heart to tell them to go away because it's their livelihood, but I 
can't bear it! I cannot have a little adivasi girl coming and serving me - 
and what do I do? Eventually I said I can't, you know, I'm paying them their 
salary and everything, but I'm moving. I can't, and I'm torn because one 

loves one's associates, you know - 

You mean - ?
You know, one loves people, it's not that you hate everybody from your class 
or whatever it is, but when are we going to look at ourselves and say this 
is wrong, or this is not acceptable? We can't do this, you know. And the 
thing is, there are no clear answers. But sometimes there are clear answers. 
When Bangaru Laxman takes money on screen - that's a very clear thing. Or 
when Jaya Jaitley did what she did - it's very clear. (Laughs) I'm not 
interested in her saying I took it for the party or Mr Srinivas Prasad was 
not there and it was actually Mr Verma. I don't give a shit, you know, who 
it was. (Pause) I believe George Fernandes said that he hasn't seen the 
tapes because he doesn't have TV - Really (laughing)^Å on aap ka adalat. I 
mean, just for that he should be sacked. 

Removed immediately! (Both laughing) One last question. Specifically, about 
the defence deals, do you think anything can ever be unearthed about them? 
After all these are files and contracts controlled by the government. 
Unearthed? Well, I think the dirtiest business in the world is defence 
deals, you know. So, if you look at the how the Ilusu dam in Turkey is being 
built - where the British are funding the dam but it also has to do with 
some back connection about buying arms as well from England. And you look at 
the Pergau dam in Malaysia, where aid was tied to a separate contract to buy 
arms, you'll see that in the first world, this is a dhanda - how to create 
insecurities and then say, oh, but you must buy our weapons. So, I mean, one 
can't understand the extent of the baniyapana of the first world. It's 
amazing, they are the most stunningly accomplished baniyas basically, you 
know, traders. They will do anything ya, anything for money. The doublespeak 
that's involved there is hard to match. So, I don't know how you unearth all 
this, how you cut through all the veils^Å

But also, I don't understand why on the one hand, you want to have secrecy 
on defence deals, and on the other hand, you parade all your guns on 
Republic Day. Why? I mean, why shouldn't everybody know what weapons you 
have? I don't think there's any secret about them really, you know, except 
that you want to play some boy's game and pretend that this is all some 
really cloak and dagger stuff. Because all the time you're boasting about 
your weapons and your armies. Maybe it's a secret where you place them or 
something, but there's nothing secret about what you have! So, open it up, 
you know. You want everyone to know that you have bombs, you want to thump 
your chest, you want to parade every bloody water pistol that you have on 
Republic Day and then say, it's all very secret. I don't know, I'd just say, 
open it up.